4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Tula.
5.  The applicant was a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. He was subsequently granted category 2 disabled status and became entitled to various social benefits.
6.  On 23 January 2001 he lodged an action with the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula (“the District Court”) against the Department of the Interior of the Tula Region (his employer) for the adjustment of his monthly compensation payments for the damage to his health, and for the recovery of unpaid sums due to him.
7.  The first hearing of the case was scheduled for 24 July 2001 but was cancelled because the judge was on leave.
8.  On 23 October 2001 the applicant supplemented his claims. On the same date the District Court stayed the proceedings following a request by the Supreme Court filed with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for a review of the constitutionality of certain legal provisions determining the amount of compensation to be paid to Chernobyl victims.
9.  The Constitutional Court ruled on the relevant issues on 19 June 2002.
10.  On 28 August 2003 the proceedings were resumed.
11.  On 6 October 2003 the hearing was adjourned at the respondent’s request as its representative was ill.
12.  On 28 October 2003 the hearing was adjourned following a request by the respondent for third parties to be permitted to join the proceedings.
13.  On 17 December 2003 the hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to appear.
14.  On 10 February 2004 the applicant supplemented his claims.
15.  12 February 2004 the hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to appear.
16.  On 29 March 2004 the hearing was cancelled because the judge was ill.
17.  The next hearings, scheduled for 19 May 2004 and 16 August 2004, were cancelled because the judge was involved in another unrelated set of proceedings.
18.  On 18 October 2004 and 29 November 2004 the hearing was adjourned because the respondent failed to appear.
19.  On 26 January 2005 and 18 March 2005 the hearing was postponed at the request of the respondent; the reasons have not been specified.
20.  On 14 April 2005 the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on leave, and further postponed because the applicant was ill.
21.  On 11 May 2005 and 24 May 2005 the applicant supplemented his claims.
22.  The hearings of 8 June 2005 and 16 June 2005 were cancelled, respectively, in order for the judge to participate in a seminar and because he was ill.
23.  The hearings of 21 September 2005 and 27 September 2005 were held as planned. The next hearing was scheduled for 30 September 2005.
24.  By a decision of 30 September 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of another set of proceedings before the Constitutional Court of Russia in a case which was relevant to the determination of the applicant’s case.
25.  On 4 October 2005 the Constitutional Court of Russia resolved that matter. Meanwhile, on 23 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 the applicant supplemented his claims.
26.  On 23 June 2006 the proceedings were resumed and the hearing was scheduled for 11 September 2006, but was further postponed because of the judge’s involvement in other proceedings.
27.  On 20 December 2006 the hearing was held as planned. The next hearing was scheduled for 17 January 2007.
28.  On 17 January 2007 the hearing was held as planned.
29.  On 18 January 2007 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part.
30.  On 23 August 2007 the Tula Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), acting on appeal, quashed that judgement and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
31.  On 20 February 2008 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in full.
32.  On 22 May 2008 the Regional Court overturned the judgement and ordered a new hearing.
33.  On 4 August 2008 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 November 2008.